Template talk:Crossover infobox
Minor rewording of instructions In your user instructions, I changed the wording from "live broadcasts" to "original broadcasts", bearing in mind that most TV programs haven't been broadcast live for ages! -- Greer Watson 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :In your top instructions, I changed "work" to "fandom" to avoid misunderstanding. Otherwise, we could find people using this template on the page for the story itself (i.e. the writer's "work") rather than the page for the crossover fandom. -- Greer Watson 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Ordering the Lines of the Infobox I'm wondering whether "format" shouldn't be put first. If I don't have the faintest idea what something is, I'd want to know if it was TV/movie/comic/etc. first up. Only then would I care who created it, or the company/publisher, or the date. -- Greer Watson 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Creator/Author I think we need to consider alternatives to the concept of Creator, in the same way that you offer the option of Company/Publisher. In particular, books have Authors. Granted, I bet J.K. Rowling wouldn't mind being called the creator of Harry Potter (though Tolkien would certainly have had religious reservations about being deemed the creator of Middle-earth). However, as a rule, books have Authors. And it mightn't be bad idea to consider other possible alternatives, given the wide range of formats. -- Greer Watson 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :Hmm. Those are good points to consider. I think for me it was more a matter of similarity to other infobox templates. Shall I move it and if you don't like it I revert it? Let me know once I move it if you don't like it. I'll also add the author line.--Kodia 23:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Publication Date Also, with books you don't have a "release date" but a "publication date". Books seem to be the big sticking point here: terminology is quite distinct from that used for film and TV. Of course, it is true that most FK crossovers aren't with books; but that's only a reflection of FKFIC-L policy. I bet there are book-based crossovers out there, e.g. on fanfiction.net—or, if there aren't right now, there could be in the future. I'd rate pretty high the chances of there being someone out there with a LotR or HP crossover in their closet. We need to plan for everything we can think of. Because if we can imagine it, so can they. -- Greer Watson 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :Done and added.--Kodia 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Comic Books Comics represent a bit of a complication, since the crossovers reference characters rather than series. There may well be a creator, and hence an initial date. However, there is no "run date" on a character, only on the series it has appeared in. And there may well be more than one such. I do not see an especial problem here. The solution, as I see it, is to use the run date line; but, instead of simply putting in the year(s), as you would for a TV show, you put in the title of the comic with the date in brackets. For Batman, for example, you would put: ::Detective Comics (1939 - present) Batman (1940 - present) or some such. (Those two being the major titles.) -- Greer Watson 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :I think opening it up to series would open up a can of worms larger than the state of Texas. Some characters don't appear in one comic but MANY. Batman being a prime example. You only listed two of 7 series in which Batman appeared in a starring role and that's not even including series in which he appeared. Check out the list of Batman comics for a brief idea of what I mean. Which one do you choose? You can't. There's no way. I don't think a date is possible with comics. I think just the main character is the best way to do with no date. The only way it would be different in my mind would be if, for some strange reason, the fanfic author said something like "I was reading the 1 March issue of New Mutants and thought I'd do a crossover by adding Nick into the mix and seeing how he reacted." --Kodia 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) ::Well, for Batman, I'd omit group and dual titles like JLA and World's Finest; but I agree that it would probably be best to include things like Shadow of the Bat. It's an interesting question, though, since some characters certainly do have associations with just the one title. ::Of course, there's the creation date: Batman was created in 1939, as Superman was the previous year. For every hero, villain, or group there is a date of first appearance. That would also deal with someone like Catwoman, who started out simply as one of Batman's stable of villains. -- Greer Watson 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) And this is where I disagree again, I'm afraid. For the characters themselves, I don't see how a date is meaningful. And some people would disagree that JLA or World's Finest should be omitted. I think we need to just focus on the character or world in which the action is set and forgo the date entirely for comics.--Kodia 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :Well, there are certainly people who'd consider the other titles significant, I agree with you there. :As for the date of first appearance: why is that not meaningful? It is as much a type of publication date as any other. In fact, it's probably the most signifiant date associated with a character. Admitttedly, if you look at comic book reference materials, it's usually cited as "First appearance: Title #xxx (Month, Year)". -- Greer Watson 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Ah, but First Appearance is decidedly different. Personally I think using the date fields that exist to promote this information would be wrong. But a First Appearance field? Yep, we could sure do that and it would make a heck of a lot more sense than smooshing things into a date field.--Kodia 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :First Appearance field sounds good. -- Greer Watson 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) ::I just tried adding this to the template myself. Better check it though. -- Greer Watson 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Looks nice. -- Greer Watson 09:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)